Document: AFFIDAVIT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/451.0 AFFIDAVIT 2020-12-16 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-12-16
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Combined Summary:
In the complex case of Aaron Surina, a series of alleged prejudiced actions, possible misconduct, and questionable court practices have been observed, resulting in perceived injustices towards Aaron and potential risk to his children. Despite having valid documents from Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital advising against the return of his children to their mother, Sirinya Surina, due to suspected abuse, the court reportedly refused his motions, infringing on his due process rights.
Aaron accuses Sirinya of misleading the court and repeatedly seeking Writs to exclude him from his children’s lives, regardless of their allegations of harm by their mother. He also alleges court staff misled Judge Dixon about his scheduled Protection Order hearing, resulting in its cancellation despite both parties being present and ready with all necessary documents.
Aaron has endured baseless accusations and alleged court staff interference, severely impacting his ability to work and his custody rights. He’s been forced to defend against the petitioner’s relentless attempts to gain full custody, causing undue stress and hindering his ability to focus on his personal and professional life. Despite a medical report advising against returning his child, Andrew Surina, to the mother’s care due to safety concerns, he continues to face unfair motions for full custody.
Aaron’s children were recommended to remain in his care following a medical evaluation pending an investigation into certain allegations. However, the unavailability of the assigned social worker, Rena Perez, for discussion infringes on Aaron’s rights to participate in the decision-making process for his children. This lack of immediate response could be seen as negligence, potentially harmful to the children’s welfare.
The document’s lack of transparency raises concerns about the fairness of the legal process, as Aaron should have full access to any accusations made against him or the children’s mother. Furthermore, changes in David’s medications were made without clear elaboration on whether Aaron was adequately consulted, potentially violating his parental rights.
From Aaron’s perspective, instances of unfairness and possible unethical conduct are evident. He had to make multiple attempts to get his children seen by a medical professional, indicating a lack of adequate support from the Department of Children, Youth & Families. Additionally, communication from the court was unclear, with a hearing location change not communicated in time, causing both parties to be late. The court’s decision to cancel the protection order without offering an alternative solution imposed an unnecessary burden on Aaron, further exacerbating the perception of bias and unfair handling of his case.
These allegations, if accurate, suggest a potential bias against Aaron Surina and possible acts of unethical conduct by attorneys, court staff, and social workers. In light of these alleged injustices, Aaron urges the court to consider his motions to protect his children and himself from further harassment and undeserved legal complications.
About The Author
